Hacker News Reader

I really like the German higher education system. Unfortunately, the USA conflates universities and applied universities.

Most people who go to university in the USA, go to what would be closer to a Fachhochschule. Smaller colleges and universities that don't grant PhDs and whose professors have research output is closer to "write a paper in the summer" than "run a research lab".

Most people who have negative views toward their university experience in the USA, I think, feel that way because they thought they were going to a Fachhochschule but actually went to a university (or vice versa).

I don't quite understand how the USA can look at our education system, look around the world, and then conclude that technology will be our salvation. No. Just build a system that works like the perfectly functional and affordable systems in much of Europe.

> Unfortunately, the USA conflates universities and applied universities.

This. I wish this point were brought up more often in these discussions in favor of/against universities. People tend to have entirely different ideas when it comes to what a higher-level education should provide: For some people it's a scientific way of thinking about the world, for others it's just preparation for a future (and hopefully better-paying) job. Separating those ideas might be a good first step in solving this conundrum.

Thank you for this perspective, I've never thought of it but it makes a lot of sense

What not to love, they begin the class segregation early. Wait what? Guess they are that way after centuries of pretty authoritarian governments. Every one knows their place /s

The USA is just as bad, if not worse. The mechanisms are different but the effect is the same.

If you don't take honors/AP courses throughout high school, then you're cut off from an entire world of possibilities. And if you are in the wrong ZIP code, you might not have access to those courses at all. Do you know what percentage of US high schools offer AP CS?

The US segregates pretty heavily starting the last year of middle school / first year of high school. You can jump tracks, but it's hard (and the same is true in Germany btw). Some tracks aren't even available to poor (esp rural) folks. Wealth determines which tracks are available. Within the set of available tracks, teacher recommendations play a big role in which path a student is suggested to pursue. Biases exist, and people will often follow whatever path their parents followed.

Although you can get into some college without honors/AP courses, those lower-tier colleges are typically closer to something like an applied university. With correspondingly similar differences in outcomes. So, in the USA, your ZIP code and teachers' decisions from freshman year of high school do have a large effect on your life path.

Germany's system isn't perfect, but "egalitarianism" isn't a strong defense of the US system relative to Germany. If anything, the US system is worse. The idea that living in some particular part of the city might mean you actually can't get a gymnasium-level education is insane in Germany, but AP deserts are a de facto reality in large swaths of the US.

At least in Germany it's explicit, people realize what's happening, it's at least somewhat merit-based, and your parent's ability to purchase expensive real estate doesn't play such a huge role.

An apology for the snark, just remembered a comment a professor(anthropologist) made that so much of the German culture was shaped by the monarchical and authoritarian regimes, just highly hierarchical and regulated to death, that ruled over it. Not comparing to the US and not American just curious how cultural differences play out. Think both US and Germany still have it decently good compared to what you will see in other countries (just plain terrible).

Now, these 2, I won't say one's situation is better than the other but it is curious that both models of public education have their origin in Prussia/Germany and seem to be keeping the original 19th Century purposes of reducing social unrest.

I do see it is more difficult to keep a good level of education in the vast extension of the US with the current system. Seems it is in need of an overhaul but way deeper than AP courses. Like how would AP courses benefit a rural schoolkid other than maybe getting access to work in a city? Could we think there is any education for him to be a good farmer? (as 1 example, not sure if it is practical) Ideally, moonshot, he would be able to choose whichever path suited him best, whether more education or moving, etc...

Yes, both are relatively better than many other systems.

> Like how would AP courses benefit a rural schoolkid other than maybe getting access to work in a city? Could we think there is any education for him to be a good farmer?

I think this perhaps misunderstands the typical life paths of rural students.

20% of the US population lives in rural counties, but only 2% of the population works in agriculture. And even that over-estimates the number of school children who will grow up to be farmers because a huge amount of the unskilled farm labor in the US is done by first generation migrants.

So the average rural schoolkid in the USA isn't going to work on a farm (and the ones that do will often be skilled workers or owners and will therefore go off and get agricultural degrees.)

The government runs a lot of jobs programs for rural areas. Things like state/federal prisons and military bases are intentionally placed in rural areas to provide employment opportunities. And of course national forests/parks tend to be in rural areas and provide a small but steady stream of jobs. We also explicitly subsidize hospitals and schools in those areas; the local tax/consumer base probably couldn't support those services on their own. So the government sector is the lifeblood of many small towns these days, at least as far as employment goes.

Thank you, your answer has helped me have a clearer picture of rural USA. I think I can see your current government's tough stance on immigration as making sense to the people in those areas. What do you think could improve the growth of these kind of area?

> No. Just build a system that works like the perfectly functional and affordable systems in much of Europe.

I don't see how that can happen until there is broader acknowledgement of what is actually appropriate in terms of education. No one is prepared to the admit that university degrees from PhD granting institutions aren't required, or are inappropriate, in all cases.

College is now a prerequisite for many jobs that don't need a university-level education. People are lazy and upping the bar is an easy option compared to handling the risk of choosing a "less qualified", but appropriate candidate.

Research drives investment while teaching doesn't. Even if you are a relatively bad at (or ill-equipped) for research you can still bring in money with this approach. In some cases, only parts of institutions should be participating, but you aren't a real university if your focus isn't primarily on "world class research."

Students are stuck with a bunch of bad options. They are unlikely to want to disappoint parents who want them to go to college and be successful. If they go down an alternative route them they'll be filtered out because systems are built around people have degrees.

University should still be open to everyone. Everyone should, independently from where they are and how rich they are, be able to study on an university if they are capable to do so.

I believe that:

1. the entry barrier is not fair and designed for a very straight funnel you either fit through or not.

2. If you would open up an university even more and you don't allow anyone to missuse it (by sleeping at the university, playing games instead of listing, getting money while attending but not caring for it) it would not have any downsight but might allow one or other mind being part of it.

I also have the feeling that people which were able to go through a bad university, already don't mind it anymore and don't care to optimize because it worked for them. We are not a poor soceity anymore and we have plenty of experience and technology. Its the duty of the university to try to help as many people as possible to learn the stuff you learn at the university. University is being paid by all people.

Its also the reason why OpenAccess should be mandatory.

You can't cater to everyone, especially if what you serve is dependant on exiting skills, knowledge or levels of understanding. One would maybe argue that a university might fix that by making dumbed down versions of things or adding extra pre-learning options but at that point it just becomes a supermarket. If you try to cover everything and everyone you just end up being mediocre which is not the point of a university.

I'm not saying you have to dumb things down etc. but i do say that the university today is not doing enough and this in direct connection to modern technology, internet and digital.

The problem in the US (as opposed to Germany) is that the barrier is not ability, but money. Wealthy families will easily place their kids on some of the greatest universities, while a poor kid needs to be a genius to go to a place like Princeton, or else will have to enter into loads of debt to have a decent education at a state university.

I don't know... 9 years ago when I graduated from a tier II state university which was highly affordable[0]. Additionally it was locally known for creating the second best engineers in the region (after Georgia Tech), best nurses in the region, and has well respected education and agriculture programs.

I leveraged my Tier II undergraduate into a tier I graduate school experience and am now a PI/lead at a large defense contractor.

If you are smart,diligent and stay out of too much trouble, you can take advantage of the cheaper/smaller state schools for undergraduate and push yourself where you want to go. It's not Princeton or MIT but there is still plenty of affordable opportunity (especially in tech and engineering).

Granted my college experience, didn't have the glamour of the division 1 football tailgates, or the excitement of a big city, but those things cost extra.

[0] It was in a small town ~30,000, so local 3 bedroom apartment was $550/mo (split 3 was was ~190 a person), and tuition was about $4000 a semester. Currently tuition is $5000/semester and you can get $5000/year from the lottery scholarship.

You did it right

> Replacing universities with a netflix-esque experience may seem attractive to students, but is doomed to fail to train students

To be honest, for very mathematical subjects the lectures are almost useless. Exercises and practicing is what gives insights, determines the grades and tells which part of the lecture is actually important.

I'd be curious how it is in other subjects, like literature or history. But I assume without writing texts, one doesn't get very far there either.

> lectures are almost useless. Exercises and practicing is what gives insights

And community -- both the other students, and the professors. To motivate each other, and to calibrate expectations, and to fill holes in each others' knowledge. That seems like the big (academic) reason to be physically on campus, and ideally at a selective place.

My impression is that the same would be true of (say) history, but I don't really know.

While I agree that exercises etc. are the way to deeply understand the subject I disagree with your take that math lectures are senseless. I admittedly always struggled when I skipped lectures and attending them helped me to see the “bigger connections” and actually understand proofs given I was taking notes throughout the lecture.

In philosophy however - which for me this semester is entirely online without any video chat whatever interaction - the in person lectures were highly valuable to me due to their nature on heavily relying on discussion. While I do have a paper here and there to write my understanding mostly comes from attending the lectures.

I used to think this way, but learning how to take math lectures really changed my university experience. To my first semester me:

1. Go to the lectures, sit upfront (where you are definitely not going to use your phone or fall asleep)

2. Get the book or script that corresponds to your lecture. Almost all math lectures follow some sort of book. If unsure, ask your professor.

Just reading ahead for half an hour prior to the lecture will make _such_ a difference, as you won’t be lost and can focus more on contexts than on definitions.

3. Feel free to ask questions. If you know where you are (see 2.) it’s much easier to know what’s wrong. Professors are human and sometimes forget to give some theorem they are using. It’s really easy (and frankly surreal at first) to be that guy that points out errors to the professor (in a respectful way!).

If your shy or you have the feeling, that the problem is indeed on your end – take notes of things that are unclear and ask them after the lecture. Professors usually love to talk about their subject!

4. Last but not least: Keep calm and carry on. It’s completely normal to feel overwhelmed at first ;)

Sure, it's possible to prepare ahead and also afterwards. But this is so time-consuming, I mean after all everybody has to decide that for themselves but IMHO Pareto-optimizing that means not visiting most lectures. At least that's how I studied and it worked out really well. But I agree with you one can seek a lot of value from it, but that doesn't limit itself to 1.5 hours sitting there and listening. But rather being really concentrated for 1.5 hours, and spending time before and after.